Beating about the Bush

Pres. Bush is scheduled to arrive in Jerusalem tomorrow. Before leaving Washington, Bush stated that Israel's "settlement policy" is an impediment to progress in the peace process. This is what both Secty. of State Rice and Pres. Abbas of the PA wanted him to say. But, Pres. Bush's own views, as stated in the past, is that he does not want to intervene directly in the negotiations between Israel and the Palestinians and he personally does not want to pressure Israel to divide Jerusalem. However, in order to appear to be fair between the two sides and in order to follow Rice's advice, he has publicly put pressure on PM Olmert to stop all further building activities on the West Bank. Accordingly Olmert has issued a decree that all future building on the West Bank must be approved directly by him. However, Bush would actually be relieved if Olmert did not slavishly follow both Rice's and his advice, but rather pushed for what is in Israel's interests. In that respect, Olmert is seen by Bush to be a weak vassal, rather than an independent and strong leader, like Sharon was. However, Bush cannot be seen to be more Zionist than the PM of Israel.
All three of the leaders involved in the upcoming meetings are weak. Bush as a "lame duck" with one year to go of his presidency, is looking for any way to improve his standing in history. However, he does not want to go down in history as the person who caused the division of the city of Jerusalem, unless he can be sure peace will ensue. However, there is no likelihoood of peace because first, Abbas can't control the West Bank and the many terrorist organizations that are active there, second Abbas does not control Gaza where Hamas rules, and third, his Israeli poodle, Olmert, is in great danger of losing his job. So any commitment that either man gives to Bush may not last longer than one week. In fact, one of the main aims of the Bush visit now is to try to strengthen Olmert's hand. But, Bush will not do this by pressuring Olmert to stop settlement building.
During his visit, Bush is apparently going to propose an international force in the West Bank to take over responsibility for security between the IDF withdrawing and the PA taking over, according to an agreement to be reached. Apart from the fact that no such agreement is in the offing, who will consititute this interim international force, NATO, the EU, Jordan and Egypt, the US? This is fraught with terrible choices, since first Israel cannot trust any international or Arab constituted force, and if the US puts its own men in, they will immediately be a target for the terrorists, and Israel will get the blame for any American soldiers killed.
Other factors have also undermined the effectiveness of Bush's strategy. One of his main reasons for coming to the Middle East is to foster a coalition against Iran. But, the recent CIA National Intelligence Estimate has greatly undermined his strategy regarding the nuclear ambitions of Iran. Also, the assassination of Benazir Bhutto in Pakistan has put the stability of that crucial country in jeopardy. There are few who would put any bets on Bush's strategy now.
On January 31, the Winograd Committee is due to publish its final Report into the conduct of the Second Lebanon War, and the consequences for Olmert are likely to be grave. While Olmert has said that he will not resign, nevertheless, there is likely to be severe public and political pressure on him to do so, both in the Knesset and in the coalition.
So while Bush will be wined and dined, and while there will be the full panoply of a State occasion, behind the facade any perceived progress in the Annapolis-Road Map peace process is likely to be futile.